Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 7, page 13 (after line 30), after the definition of non-corporate government body, insert:

offset means a measure that compensates for the residual impacts of an action on the environment, as required under Commonwealth, State or Territory law.

(2) Page 99 (after line 15), at the end of Division 3, add:

76A Use of biodiversity certificates for offsetting

(1) A biodiversity certificate cannot be used for the purpose of offsetting unless:

(a) the biodiversity outcome of the registered biodiversity project in respect of which the biodiversity certificate was issued; and

(b) the impact on the environment to which the offset relates;

affect the same species and ecological community.

Note: This means that a biodiversity certificate that was issued in respect of a project that enhances or protects biodiversity in a particular species and ecological community can only be used to offset impacts on the environment that affect the same species and ecological community.

(2) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act or any other Act.

(3) Clause 151, page 168 (line 18), before "both", insert "the original biodiversity certificate cannot be relinquished and".

(4) Clause 151, page 168 (after line 33), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (2) must provide that a biodiversity certificate (the first certificate) only meets the relinquishment equivalence requirements in relation to another biodiversity certificate (the second certificate) if the first certificate and the second certificate were issued in respect of registered biodiversity projects that:

(a) are covered by the same methodology determination; and

(b) relate to the same species and ecological community.

In essence, these amendments seek to ensure that, should offsetting be permitted under the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 scheme, the effectiveness of such biodiversity offsets is strengthened by ensuring the integrity of the potential biodiversity offsets which the government intends to permit. They do this by clearly defining a biodiversity offset as a measure that compensates for the residual impacts of an action on the environment, as required under Commonwealth, state or territory law. They also include clear limits on the use of offsets to ensure that certificates can only be used for offsetting if they are like for like with the harm they are offsetting. 'Like for like' is an established principle in offsetting, based on the notion of equivalence. These amendments define the requirement for like for like to ensure that a biodiversity certificate that was issued in respect of a project that enhances or protects biodiversity in a particular native species or ecological community can only be used to offset impacts on the environment that affect the same native species or ecological community—in other words, same species for same species and same ecosystem for same ecosystem. For example, should platypus habitat be affected by a project seeking to offset an impact, any certificate used to offset that project must repair and restore platypus habitat.

The amendments mean that certificates which relate to critically endangered species and unique biological communities should not be able to be used as offsets. We must end the practice of offsets being used as a smokescreen to cover up the destruction of irreplaceable habitat. Surely this principle should underpin our environmental laws, especially if we are to avert the extinction crisis that we currently face. The amendments also enhance the relinquishment requirement for biodiversity certificates to clearly establish that equivalent certificates are based on the like-for-like principle and ensure that they may only be relinquished where the original certificate is no longer available for relinquishment. I'd add that efforts to protect, improve and restore our unique biodiversity are welcome, and government should provide supports and incentives to landholders to protect and restore biodiversity of habitat, but the nature repair market cannot do this alone. It must be backed up by critical reforms which strengthen the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, by a strong national environmental protection agency and by greater public funding for conservation and environmental management.

In closing, I would note that recommendation 27 of the Samuel review called on the Commonwealth to reform the application of offsets under the EPBC Act to address environmental decline and achieve restoration. Strong new standards should apply to the nature repair market, but they are sadly not yet in force or even before the parliament for consideration. Hence I speak for many people when I say I hold concerns about the effectiveness of the current proposed nature repair market in protecting our environment and not simply being used to greenwash harmful activities. Indeed, without an ironclad commitment to strengthening the integrity and governance of the scheme, I find it difficult to see how the bill can be supported. No wonder some stakeholders have noted that bringing the Nature Repair Market Bill before parliament now is a case of putting the cart before the horse, and I'm tempted to agree. Nonetheless, I move these amendments in good faith, expecting the government will hold true to its commitment to zero new extinctions and a nature-positive approach to our environmental laws and policies. To that end, I call on all members to support these amendments and on the federal government to ensure reforms to related environmental laws are brought forward which strengthen the ability of the market to operate in a way which genuinely supports restoration and addresses the extinction crisis.

See this speech in context